Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 2

Bercot argues that many evangelicals use a “narrow definition” of Christian identity (born-again experience, Trinity, faith alone, believer’s baptism), yet still want to claim Washington as “one of us”; where have you seen Christians apply different standards to admired public figures than they apply to ordinary neighbors—and what does that reveal about our motives?

Another way to ask: Where have you seen Christians use stricter “Christian tests” for regular people than for famous leaders they like? What does that say about why we want to claim certain people as Christians?

Direct Answer Bercot’s point is that Christians can be tempted to “move the goalposts” to claim admired heroes, while holding everyday people to stricter standards. The transcript suggests this reveals a motive to gain cultural legitimacy—wanting great men on “our side”—rather than simply being consistent and truthful.

Support from Transcript:

Bercot says if “believes in God…was baptized as an infant, attends church, and lives an upright moral life,” then Washington can be called Christian—by a broad definition.
He says evangelicals are “very emphatic” those things “don’t make you a Christian.”
He lists their narrower requirements: a “day and hour” born-again experience, “faith alone” not good works, belief in the Trinity, and often rejecting infant baptism.
He concludes: “If you believe that those things…are essential…then George Washington was definitely not a Christian.”
He warns: “Let’s not have a double standard…call great men like George Washington Christians…when we would not consider other people living around us…as being Christians.”

Discussion Follow-ups Why do you think Christians feel pressure to claim national heroes as believers? What fear might be underneath that?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 2 of 10